While a novel design, most Soviet Tanks (its likely opponents) were just a few inches taller than the S-tank. For example, the Soviet T-64 was 2.14 meters heigh, or a mere 1.5 inches taller than the S-tank, and carried a larger gun (125mm Smoothbore vs a 105mm rifled cannon.) It really was just a case of producing a vehicle effective for the needs of defense and nothing more, but its not really interesting beyond that.
@melvinthedeathless Not a major tradeoff for a country like Sweden though, who never had plans to invade anyone during the Cold War. If they needed offensive striking power, importing some Leopards or M60s couldn't have hurt.
In 1968, two 103s were tested at the British armour school in Bovington,which reported that "the turretless concept of the "S"-tank holds considerable advantage over turreted tanks". In BAOR 1973, the 103 was tested against the Chieftain tank. Availability never fell under 90% and the final report stated, "It has not been possible to prove any disadvantage in the "S" inability to fire on the move." It has also been tested that it can fire more accurately than the Leo 1 and M60,but 0.5 sec slower
@AttilaKattila I'm no expert but Tank Destroyers were offshoots of Assault Guns or Self Propelled Guns during WW2. The role of a purpose built TD became moot when during the war it became apparent that the best thing to stop a tank with was another tank. Even though the Strv103 bears much visual similarity to vehicles like the StuG or SU series, it was not inspired by them per se.
The russians found out that this tank is not a danger because it cannot be used if immobilized and against infantry its not effective. This model in the movie has not even a remotecontrolled machinegun.
Well its not the most reliable tank out there. The system is prone to errors especially when the hydraulic oil freezes in the cold harsh conditions, The autoloader has also its problems when the vehicle is climbing steep slopes.
Surprised this isn't more common. Light, simple, durable. Give it some missiles for on the move attacks. Or have some leap frog over stationary ones. I would definitely incorporate a design like this in my ground forces.
@unambitious i think it's an issue where making a fully-tracked armored vehicle makes it too expensive to be "expendable" but not having a turret makes it too tactically limited to be worth the cost (for most states, anyway). i expect that's partly why recent spatg-ish vehicles have been lightly armed and wheeled (centauro, stryker). of course cost and expeditionary requirements are involved, and ceteris paribus more armor is nice, but eh. armies run on dollars.
It's funny how so many people don't know shit about miltech but they always have opinion.
Ridiculous bitching about Vietnam-era tank inability to shoot on move is like bitching about inability of Vietnam era fighter plane to carry BVR missiles. In a time when only 7% of those missiles actually hit the target. Not to mention that they are not even fired in any numbers (less than 500 in a 10y of war). It truly states all about person who say this. Stupid beyond visual range.
You can't compare it to an m1a1 or t-80! The s-tank was built to defend Sweden against the Sovjet union in the Forrests of north Sweden. It was perfect and it would still be perfect for that cause but we don't need to defend ourselfs from them since the fall of the Sovjet union. It was built as an defencive not an offesive tank and then it's pretty dumb to compare it to for example the m1a1.
@agustusson All 4 armored brigades were to mobilize assemble and go into position in southern sweden. There is a lot of forest there too. Though some S-tanks might have been stationed in northern sweden to reinforce there. the location of the armour regiments tell you where they planned to use them.
I have been a S-tank war company Comander for 15 years. Late 70´s an onward.
We have a say in Sweden "that it´s sometimes better to shut up, and let everyone else belive you are an idiot,than to opne your mouth, and reveal that it´s through.
Do not compare it to wwII constructions and dont comare it to Leo 2 or Abrams.
We traind in killing T-64 and T-72´s,We beat the creap out of both Callenger and
Leo 1. In those days, time to first shot determend the outcome in most duells.
I am not sure why they have any other person in the vehicle if the driver, aims and pilots the vehicle by himself, though I understand the use of an additional commanding officer as well as a radio operator, but still. They are to a certain extent not needed.
@ThePainHunter The tank was specifcally designed to defend against the Soviet Bear in the forests of Sweden. Because it's so low profile, and can dig itself a hole in which to hide in, it becomes a much more deadly defensive weapon than a T72 an offensive
@MultiAREE There it is. Maybe that role's not applicable anymore, but I'd still argue it could make a huge difference if you play to it's strengths, not its weaknesses.
NATO borrowed 10 S-tanks with crew to test this tank in Germany (mid 70s) and they managed to destroy 72 Chieftain Tanks without a single loss. After that the US also did similar trials and the report was classified. S-tank was always underestimated despite the fact that it was 10 years ahead in many technical solutions. See wiki for more info!
The Swedes did these test shot way back in the very early 1980's or very very very late 1970's, Tank I guess is from the 70's and the new munition from the 80's and is when the series of test shots were made. These days at least the other western powers have munitions that are very similar so there is almost no difference. I always thought this new munition spelled the death of the tank. U need no tank to fire that munition, all u need is a gun that is fat enough.
Able to easily get down into a TRUE hull down position. All that remains to wish for is no heat radiation from the chassis and smokeless rounds. :) But even if they spot the tank it will be in a TRUE hull down position. I still think the tank is a little bit too high. But I guess they wanted clearance to obstacles beneath on the ground. The gun is good though. And with new classified swedish munition can penetrate 10 metric meters of old convensional armor. It is a secret and figures amazing.
the tank cannot lock on its target and shoot while moving, for doing so a turret is required so its no good on the offensive part or while making an evasive move. There is no doubt that it can ambush itself.However, these tanks have been replaced by L2s.
@MrBababbabaa doesn't matter if u have a turret or not, the gun could be alowed to swing a few degrees sideways and up and down without a turret. What u need is some form of hydraulics and some automatic gyro stabilated gun. It is the gyro and the hydraulcs that is completely missing in that tank.
The Germans produced many tanks like this one called JagdPanzers. Maybe it is not such a bad idea after all.
@DonMeaker You could ... u know, kids doing the service , like to brag about what they are doing. I don't know how fast as S-tank turns if it is standing still at 0 km/h at the start, compared to a turret. But if it on the move you can do it. Tankless turret is a good one. :)
Being a Swedish-American, I'm almost required to love this tank! I never met a Minnesota Swede who didn't puff up with pride at this genius Swedish military science acheivement. (we still think of Sverige as the Home Country, US Patriots though we certainly are)
The S Tank concept is still 100% valid; if I were the leader of some fictitional country, purchasing AFV's for the defensive role, I would pay Sweden to put the 103C back into FULL production!!!!
@MrBababbabaa Actually, they meet in a simulated battle where the Leo2 (called Strv 122 in Swedish army) (6 vs 6) was on offence and the "S" defended, the Leos were "knocked out" to a loss of one "S" tank... So, if I am invading my neighbour, Leo for sure, if I am defending the "S"...
But all around the Leo is the better tank, of course.
@swertinge07 - tanks are machines fitted with huge caliber guns which break through enemy defense line and kill everyone and everything that comes in their path. the "s" looks like an artilery gun put on a halftrack. u cant call it a tank its more of a howitzer cannon.
@MrBababbabaa Well, the experts don´t agree with you... They call the S tank, a tank. So that´s that, but thanks for your input. The S TANK had the L74, the same gun as fitted to the M1 and leopard 1, for example, but costume made by Bofors as a L/62 gun instead of L/52. A longer barrel makes for higher muzzle velocity so in fact, the gun on the S tank was better then the original...
While the "S Tank" is an interesting weapons system, (or in my opinion, a very nice self-propelled anti-tank gun,) it should be noted that prior to their retirement in the 1990's, no other country bought any of them, despite Bofors Company's best efforts. That, and after their announced retirement, when they could have been had dirt cheap, still no one bought them.
So as a purely defensive, high-mobility, anti-tank weapon, it was very good. But not in the same league as a real tank.
@skeilak They wouldn't be dirt cheap. By the time it was scrapped, the tanks were very old and required a lot of maintenance. Plus that by the 90's there was thermal vision, and the S-tanks turbine engine would make it very visible.
The Swedes did try to make an unmanned version, however the technology didn't exist.
@hogge87 : As I recall, the Swedes did offer them for sale.
And you're right, they were costly to maintain, but all tanks are.
And while thermal imaging would be a problem on a "first-world" battle field, that wouldn't be a problem for, say... Brazil, Argentina, Indonesia, Uganda, and the like. I think the tank's overall sophistication, limited role, and turbine engine probably scared off that market. Still, a fine vehicle.
I would also think an unmanned battle tank is still some years away.
The S-tank did kill 8 British Chieftain tanks without any damage in an exercise in the mid 80s. First fielded in 1962 and the worlds first tank with Autoloader, LASER and Ballistic calculator. Highest fire rate and longest fire range of all tanks at that time!
exercise and combat are 2 different things, the challenger one ,didnt do great in that competion against rival tanks that time, yet challanger 1 ,destroyed almost 200 iraqi tanks,was it without any losses,, the challenger 2 is almost a different tank again, and it was this tank i think that had the longest ever ,tank kill , in iraq
Actually no ballistic calculator on the 103c only a LASER,that we did not need, due to its fantastic gun L62. Politician´s decided that instead of stabilazing the tank it
was to be equipped with LASER. Under 2000m you dont need a LASER on that tank. Battlefield ranges are rearly longer than that in Sweden
The S-tank did kill 8 British Chieftain tanks without any damage in an exercise in the mid 80s. First fielded in 1962 and the worlds first tank with Autoloader, LASER and Ballistic calculator. Highest fire rate and longest fire range of all tanks at that time!
The S-tank was one of the tank officers in Warsaw pact feared most because it was so hard to dedect, hit and its awesome gun could fire longer than the Russian tanks!
S-tank with a 120mm Rhinemetall gun, Chobham and ERA...scary effective defensive tank, dude.
When dug in correctly, the S-tank's almost invisible. Like literally JUST the end of the barrel and the commander's periscope can be seen.This is by design. How can you kill what you can't hit?
@Bullzeye95 Yes, it was an amazing construction for its time, Today you can hit a tank from any direction, most commonly from the top and thru the roof :(
@Skalmans750 True, true. You could kill a dug-in S-tank very easily from above, either with air support, a Javelin, or guided artillery rounds.
Maybe I'm judging the tank on antiquated standards, but the thing would still be a major force multiplier in a hit-and-scoot, tank defense-in-depth scenario.
@Paciat Yes a javelin missile will make easy work of the s tank, and anyother tank of today. But in order to use the javelin against a tank you need direct line of sight for the system to lock onto a tank, and thats where the S tank has an advantage because its for the 1st small, for the 2nd its primary tactic is to stay hidden untill the time to attack has come. So the only time you will MOST LIKELY be able to discover and open fire with a javelin missile against an s tank is during a firefight
I served on those in 1970. I have experience from all three positions, and the "baklänges lasse" was the worst. Bad view (periscope only) and with the radio in your face, backpedalling at full speed is no joke, But the worst problem was the gas turbine, couldn´t take dust.
S had "gate" armor, three 7,62 mm machine guns, nightvision, lasrrangefinder, 105 mm gun, autoloader... Are you kidding me? You actually think a WW2 tank is better...?
Even if the S tank has a bigger caliber gun then Hetzer, the hetzer stand 3 cm taller. Three machine guns against one... Then again, you probably thing an "updated" Tiger 2 would defeat the M1A2 SEP(V2) tank....
that's not entirely true. strv 103 can actually move the cannon a couple of degrees to the sides without moving the entire vehicle. But still, it is made for defence at an oncoming attack. In swedish terrain also for that matter.
Fascinating tank! The Swedes are very creative when it comes to creating new machinery of war. The S tank even had room available for an extra crew member, the rear driver, who faced the rear of the tank equipped with a complete setup for driving. This allowed the tank to be driven backwards at the same speed as forwards, keeping its frontal amour pointed at the enemy.
Why did they stop using this? It seems like a great idea and look at the front of the tank it's like a wedge, rounds would bounce right off of it I bet. Since Sweden is unlikely to to go on the offensive it's the perfect defensive tank, who cares if it can't fire while moving.
1 It got old and ran out of spareparts, and to make more it would have been kinda expensive to reproduce new ones.
2 Gyrostabilisation had enterd the battleground.
Still the fastest fireing tank in the world tho :)
And i was a perfect defence tank. Last war simulation in -97, 6 s-tanks took on 6 leo5 in a defencivebattle. S-tank won with the loss of 1 tank vs all 6 leos destroyed.
the thing is when they tested its defense against some other tank(forgot what it is) the progectile went right through it, right through the whole thing, to my surprise. I like its design, low silhoutte too....but too bad amour isnt strong enough
Modern subcaliber ammunition (long rod penetrators with discarding sabot adapter) are unlike WW2 full bore solid shot- they don't deflect off of surfaces, rather they tend to normalize and turn into the target. Even weak Iraqi T-72 1960's BM-9 ammunition with half propellant charges didn't deflect off of Abrams tanks but stuck into them like arrows without full penetration. Advantage is that they increase the line of sight thickness, as if a given layer were thicker without actually being so.
"finns were full citizens" Maybe, but i hope you don't think that means "equal". Because that certainly wasn't the cause. I have to wonder where sayings like "svenska talande bättre folket" originate among finnish speaking population. Would it be because back then swedes had all the wealth and power in finland, and might have been a "little" privileged ? I don't want to sound bitter or anything here, because I don't give a f''k, but it's a historical and cultural fact.
Event though nationalism as a mass movement didn't exist back then, that doen't mean national identity didn't exist. And btw, i don't consider myself a patriot. Far from that. I think nations shouldn't exist at all. I have no reason to "love my country", especially with the current idiots in charge of it. Nation is an arbitrary concept that unnecessarily divides people.
yes we have leo2, but 103S was crap, the engine hydraulic beaked down all the time and it was hard to hit a target that moving, but as a defender it was in possible to shut out if you even saw it in time before you ware eliminated, with 50mm panzer that become 70mm in a angel of 45 Degrees, nice to drive and 70Km/H if the gas turbine was engage powered by Volvo gas turbine and a Detroit Diesel.
The S-Tanks where developed to act in the Swedish forrests it couldt have any turrent because it would allways hit trees when it tried to point the tower so they built it as low as posible so it could stay as hidden as possible and it waited unill enemy tanks came. luckely that never happend.
Hmmm, looks more like german StuG from WW2 than like a tank. Interesting design. Is this tank the reason why sweden uses the Leopard 2 today? just kidding....
One should not underestimate a turretless tank. In the German counter-attack on Carentan on june 13th 1944 in Normandie 25 STUG tanks and an SS panzergrenadier batallion pushed back the 101st division and destroyed 49 shermans and inflicted serious casualties although being far less than the american defenders.
That Band of Brothers show shows the event differently though!
This perticular tank is made to ambush the enemy. That doesn't just mean lying and waiting but often to drive up against the enemy through the Swedish forests, firing and then going full throttle backwards which is just as fast.
Many times in Sweden the terrain is too wooded for tanks being deployed conventionally. That's what makes the S perfect for say a russian invasion from Finland:)
Judging by the fact that Sweden had one of the largest military capacities in the world during the Cold War (4th largest air force and 1 000 000 men at mobilisation) we were quite prepared to fight the Red Army, as well as Sweden has a large military industry.
wow, that's a really smartass comment coming from you. Russia would've crushed Finland in less than a week, just like they would with sweden. And when has Sweden ever depended on Finland to cover its "ass"?
Russia has tried to crush finland many times, look what has happened in the past, they have never succeeded (except once when the army defending finland was SWEDISH army). Study history (further than just cold war), swedes have always been provoking russia from behind finland's back.
Yes, study history. Finland was part of Sweden until 1809. Not a possession like Estonia or Pomerania, but an integral part of Sweden. Finns were full citizens, etc. The idea of nation-states is a 19th century idea; people just didn't think in those terms before Finland fell to Russia. Be a Finnish patriot if you want, but don't go re-writing history. Love your country for what it is, not some fictional version that never existed. You can't write Finland out of Swedish history or vice-versa.
I know my history. Didn't you read my comment. Russia was able to conquer finland when it was under swedish rule, and thus had swedish army defending it. Finland has never been "integral part" of sweden. We have always had our own language and culture. Finns have never considered themselves swedes at any point in history, no matter who ruled us.
Hate to break it to you but finland was an integral part of sweden, just as "skåne/scania" was of denmark once. The idea of a finnish nation didn't really occur until the 19th century, before that finland wasn't "under swedish rule" as you say, it was sweden. You might not like it or want to admit it but thats how it was. Noticed I said "how it was" and not how it is. No reason to fight over it. Swedes and finns have much in common due to our history, focus on that instead. ;)
@plox2000 The Finns lived in Finland even before the Swedes conquered us and we lived here even after you lost Finland to the Russian Tsars. The Finns were never Swedish. Our land was just under Swedish rule.
But all that said I do still like and value our Swedish neighbors and I would fight side by side with you if your nation was threatened. :)
@YksiSuomalainen There were people living in what is today known as Finland, yes. However, like I said in my prev. post, the idea of Finland as a nation didn't really take shape until the 19th century (hence, they were swedish citizens). Just as there were people living in Sweden before the actual creation (during the 11th century) of the country itself took place. (Again, just saying how it was, not how it is.)
My point was that we're all pretty much the same, no need for "national" flaming.
@plox2000 Even if we were under a different nation we would still be Finns. Our ethnicity doesn't change because the government changes. You think that we were Swedish when we lived under Swedish rule and Russian when we were under Russian rule, but we weren't. We were Finns living under a foreign nation.
@YksiSuomalainen Good god, can't belive I have to explain this again. Yes, the finns would be finns, swedish finns. Just as people living in an area known as scania in Sweden are scanians, swedish scanians. Once they were danish scanians and saw themselfs as danes, when scania was a part of denmark. Just as the swedish finns saw themselfs as swedish citizens once.
This is neither good or bad, I'm just saying how it was. You're finns today, congrats, enjoy it, but accept historical facts.
@plox2000 Please at least accept the possibility that your wrong. From what I know from those times the Finnish people saw the Swedish as a invading and occupying power and people. We did not consider ourselves Swedes one bit and the Swedish didn't consider us Swedish either.
"Russia would've crushed Finland in less than a week" thats what they said in 1939 aswell ;). And sweden is depending on finland to cover its ass right now, since swedish strenght is below 20 000 fighting men atm.(Thank you retarded government)
This tank is obsolete today, only a few remains in museums, the rest have been melted down in a steelwork not far from my home!!! Maybe a sad ending, but I think it served well for many years. Maybe it should have been keept as a defensive weapon-system? Well, too late now...it's Leopard 2 that counts today!
Some of these tanks were converted into minesweepers...
When Sweden were ready for a new tank, we had 4 options:
Getting the Abraham m1a1, the challenger, the Leopard 2 and starting our own project, called tank 2000 or something, that would far outclass any tank in use today. This was however too expensive, so we went for the leo 2.
Very inovative design IMO. The idea of ONE guy using it too is a definant plus, decreases casualties. In defense i think these would be matched by no other save modern MBTs. Put it in a dug in and you have yourself a nasty defense
it was custom-maid for sweden, meaning it's extremly useful in cold climate, with no roads, a hell alot of forest and or mountains.. it not to any real use in open combat.. so it doesn't fit so many countries
bullpup design!
F3udF1st 1 week ago
While a novel design, most Soviet Tanks (its likely opponents) were just a few inches taller than the S-tank. For example, the Soviet T-64 was 2.14 meters heigh, or a mere 1.5 inches taller than the S-tank, and carried a larger gun (125mm Smoothbore vs a 105mm rifled cannon.) It really was just a case of producing a vehicle effective for the needs of defense and nothing more, but its not really interesting beyond that.
TroubleEngineer85 1 week ago
This was a fascinating design.
CaptHawkeye 4 weeks ago
In response, the Norwegian Army bought 500 septic tanks, but they couldn't figure out how to drive them! Uff Da!
Charliecomet82 2 months ago
It's more of a defensive vehicle than an offensive one, the lack of a turret means that it can't effectively engage targets while on the move.
melvinthedeathless 2 months ago
@melvinthedeathless very original
Jadervason 1 month ago
@melvinthedeathless Not a major tradeoff for a country like Sweden though, who never had plans to invade anyone during the Cold War. If they needed offensive striking power, importing some Leopards or M60s couldn't have hurt.
CaptHawkeye 4 weeks ago
I like it! Sweden - made smart! I want to have the one/ Best regards from Belarus!
MrProstokepka 3 months ago
i like this tank.
KonbanhaYuujin 3 months ago
In 1968, two 103s were tested at the British armour school in Bovington,which reported that "the turretless concept of the "S"-tank holds considerable advantage over turreted tanks". In BAOR 1973, the 103 was tested against the Chieftain tank. Availability never fell under 90% and the final report stated, "It has not been possible to prove any disadvantage in the "S" inability to fire on the move." It has also been tested that it can fire more accurately than the Leo 1 and M60,but 0.5 sec slower
SkullKing11841 3 months ago
I'm really interested in what does not make this tank a tank destroyer... Any expert opinions?
AttilaKattila 4 months ago
@AttilaKattila first you have to define the two terms
Jadervason 1 month ago
@AttilaKattila I'm no expert but Tank Destroyers were offshoots of Assault Guns or Self Propelled Guns during WW2. The role of a purpose built TD became moot when during the war it became apparent that the best thing to stop a tank with was another tank. Even though the Strv103 bears much visual similarity to vehicles like the StuG or SU series, it was not inspired by them per se.
CaptHawkeye 4 weeks ago
Worst ever tank ! No one want this tank, swedish robish.
MegaProphet777 5 months ago
That shell casing cracks me up every time
usmarine4160 5 months ago
@usmarine4160 Why's that?
Vot63 5 months ago
It looks like a modern Jagdpanzer from WW2 lol
ak907jk 6 months ago
Sweden realizes this isn't WW2 right? Lmao
ak907jk 6 months ago
The crew member at 4:13 looks like a character out of Fahrenheit 451.
lolz
jrg8008 6 months ago
I like how it craps out it's cartrige cases...
CEOkiller 7 months ago
The russians found out that this tank is not a danger because it cannot be used if immobilized and against infantry its not effective. This model in the movie has not even a remotecontrolled machinegun.
DeeZanic 7 months ago
Well its not the most reliable tank out there. The system is prone to errors especially when the hydraulic oil freezes in the cold harsh conditions, The autoloader has also its problems when the vehicle is climbing steep slopes.
DeeZanic 7 months ago
the tank poops 5:04
rofl
MouthofSaurons 8 months ago
Surprised this isn't more common. Light, simple, durable. Give it some missiles for on the move attacks. Or have some leap frog over stationary ones. I would definitely incorporate a design like this in my ground forces.
unambitious 8 months ago
@unambitious i think it's an issue where making a fully-tracked armored vehicle makes it too expensive to be "expendable" but not having a turret makes it too tactically limited to be worth the cost (for most states, anyway). i expect that's partly why recent spatg-ish vehicles have been lightly armed and wheeled (centauro, stryker). of course cost and expeditionary requirements are involved, and ceteris paribus more armor is nice, but eh. armies run on dollars.
bartlebybartleby 5 months ago
@bartlebybartleby Vehicles like the Centauro and Stryker are really closer to Assault Guns than tank destroyers though.
CaptHawkeye 4 weeks ago
Go Germany's Sturm III and this beautiful thing! Amazing! ... And adorable. :D
Tyco200 9 months ago
This is 100% A Sturm III of the 20th Century. GO SWEDEN... AND GERMANY'S STRANGE, YET FANTASTIC DESIGNS!
Tyco200 9 months ago
Swedes are genius.
It's funny how so many people don't know shit about miltech but they always have opinion.
Ridiculous bitching about Vietnam-era tank inability to shoot on move is like bitching about inability of Vietnam era fighter plane to carry BVR missiles. In a time when only 7% of those missiles actually hit the target. Not to mention that they are not even fired in any numbers (less than 500 in a 10y of war). It truly states all about person who say this. Stupid beyond visual range.
mladjo007 9 months ago 9
time for a modeling on incredibots
KathrinHart 10 months ago
Bullpup tank?
Damaku250 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this is a purely defensive tank,and this is very good at that role
richardhaw 1 year ago
this is a purely defensive tank,and this is very good at that role
richardhaw 1 year ago
You can't compare it to an m1a1 or t-80! The s-tank was built to defend Sweden against the Sovjet union in the Forrests of north Sweden. It was perfect and it would still be perfect for that cause but we don't need to defend ourselfs from them since the fall of the Sovjet union. It was built as an defencive not an offesive tank and then it's pretty dumb to compare it to for example the m1a1.
agustusson 1 year ago 4
@agustusson All 4 armored brigades were to mobilize assemble and go into position in southern sweden. There is a lot of forest there too. Though some S-tanks might have been stationed in northern sweden to reinforce there. the location of the armour regiments tell you where they planned to use them.
MajSolo 2 months ago
i think sweden took this tank out of servies in the 90's
ashlandrailroad 1 year ago
FULL EPISODES TV[.]USNETXXX[.]COM
apportlst 1 year ago
The S-Tank had optics second to none,superb battlefield awerness
I have seen the tanktracks stabilized but the politicians choose a lazer instead.
What killed the tank was at the end all i´ts hydrolics and the oil needed to
operate it make a nice fire. But we could attack against tanks of our generation. You only
adept your tactic´s a bit, compared to tactic´s used by turret tank´s
B.t.w. The gus has a semi autoloader, i.q. it a autoloader when you tells it to be.
kmzmmz 1 year ago
I have been a S-tank war company Comander for 15 years. Late 70´s an onward.
We have a say in Sweden "that it´s sometimes better to shut up, and let everyone else belive you are an idiot,than to opne your mouth, and reveal that it´s through.
Do not compare it to wwII constructions and dont comare it to Leo 2 or Abrams.
We traind in killing T-64 and T-72´s,We beat the creap out of both Callenger and
Leo 1. In those days, time to first shot determend the outcome in most duells.
kmzmmz 1 year ago 2
removing the turret gives better gun characteristics.its another path on another concept.i'm sure the swedes have this one gyrostabilized.
jeetendrag10acc2 1 year ago
I am not sure why they have any other person in the vehicle if the driver, aims and pilots the vehicle by himself, though I understand the use of an additional commanding officer as well as a radio operator, but still. They are to a certain extent not needed.
lostend1 1 year ago
Funny tank but not very efficient in modern warfare....
ThePainHunter 1 year ago
@ThePainHunter well it was made in the 1960
lordofdarkdudes 1 year ago
@ThePainHunter The tank was specifcally designed to defend against the Soviet Bear in the forests of Sweden. Because it's so low profile, and can dig itself a hole in which to hide in, it becomes a much more deadly defensive weapon than a T72 an offensive
MultiAREE 1 year ago
@MultiAREE There it is. Maybe that role's not applicable anymore, but I'd still argue it could make a huge difference if you play to it's strengths, not its weaknesses.
Bullzeye95 1 year ago
I wouldnt really call it a "complete tank", why not "assault gun" from the german "sturmgeshutz"?
Suomipanzerdiv13 1 year ago
NATO borrowed 10 S-tanks with crew to test this tank in Germany (mid 70s) and they managed to destroy 72 Chieftain Tanks without a single loss. After that the US also did similar trials and the report was classified. S-tank was always underestimated despite the fact that it was 10 years ahead in many technical solutions. See wiki for more info!
SgtDrDeath 1 year ago
A good solution for its time. It would be at a disadvantage attacking, or against a force with stabilized guns.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
The Swedes did these test shot way back in the very early 1980's or very very very late 1970's, Tank I guess is from the 70's and the new munition from the 80's and is when the series of test shots were made. These days at least the other western powers have munitions that are very similar so there is almost no difference. I always thought this new munition spelled the death of the tank. U need no tank to fire that munition, all u need is a gun that is fat enough.
MajSolo 1 year ago
Able to easily get down into a TRUE hull down position. All that remains to wish for is no heat radiation from the chassis and smokeless rounds. :) But even if they spot the tank it will be in a TRUE hull down position. I still think the tank is a little bit too high. But I guess they wanted clearance to obstacles beneath on the ground. The gun is good though. And with new classified swedish munition can penetrate 10 metric meters of old convensional armor. It is a secret and figures amazing.
MajSolo 1 year ago
This tank should really be named after a Felinae like the German tanks. It truly relies on stealth as much as pure power.
MrMugg 1 year ago
the tank cannot lock on its target and shoot while moving, for doing so a turret is required so its no good on the offensive part or while making an evasive move. There is no doubt that it can ambush itself.However, these tanks have been replaced by L2s.
MrBababbabaa 1 year ago
@MrBababbabaa doesn't matter if u have a turret or not, the gun could be alowed to swing a few degrees sideways and up and down without a turret. What u need is some form of hydraulics and some automatic gyro stabilated gun. It is the gyro and the hydraulcs that is completely missing in that tank.
The Germans produced many tanks like this one called JagdPanzers. Maybe it is not such a bad idea after all.
MajSolo 1 year ago
@MajSolo Instead of a turretless tank, think of the S tank as a tankless turret...
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker You could ... u know, kids doing the service , like to brag about what they are doing. I don't know how fast as S-tank turns if it is standing still at 0 km/h at the start, compared to a turret. But if it on the move you can do it. Tankless turret is a good one. :)
MajSolo 1 year ago
@MajSolo
There are nor has it ever been a tank with more hydraulics
in the world. New munitions egniting all hydraulic oil,killed
the tank. Everything was hydraulic in that tank.
About 150l of hydraulic oil. Burns quite well
kmzmmz 1 year ago
germany rocks :D
Wolf9656 1 year ago
@Wolf9656 Its a swedish tank mate
WELOVETOFTING 1 year ago
@WELOVETOFTING i know - but there was a coment about german tanks - so germany rocks :D
Wolf9656 1 year ago
a great defensiv tank, usless offensiv tank, but snice sweden only have a defensiv milltary it dose not matter
lordofdarkdudes 1 year ago
Being a Swedish-American, I'm almost required to love this tank! I never met a Minnesota Swede who didn't puff up with pride at this genius Swedish military science acheivement. (we still think of Sverige as the Home Country, US Patriots though we certainly are)
The S Tank concept is still 100% valid; if I were the leader of some fictitional country, purchasing AFV's for the defensive role, I would pay Sweden to put the 103C back into FULL production!!!!
rattinox 1 year ago 3
@rattinox Would you choose a 103C against L2A6 ? no offence please.
MrBababbabaa 1 year ago
@MrBababbabaa Its was meant to do defence so yes
WELOVETOFTING 1 year ago
@MrBababbabaa Actually, they meet in a simulated battle where the Leo2 (called Strv 122 in Swedish army) (6 vs 6) was on offence and the "S" defended, the Leos were "knocked out" to a loss of one "S" tank... So, if I am invading my neighbour, Leo for sure, if I am defending the "S"...
But all around the Leo is the better tank, of course.
swertinge07 1 year ago
@swertinge07 - tanks are machines fitted with huge caliber guns which break through enemy defense line and kill everyone and everything that comes in their path. the "s" looks like an artilery gun put on a halftrack. u cant call it a tank its more of a howitzer cannon.
MrBababbabaa 1 year ago
@MrBababbabaa Well, the experts don´t agree with you... They call the S tank, a tank. So that´s that, but thanks for your input. The S TANK had the L74, the same gun as fitted to the M1 and leopard 1, for example, but costume made by Bofors as a L/62 gun instead of L/52. A longer barrel makes for higher muzzle velocity so in fact, the gun on the S tank was better then the original...
swertinge07 1 year ago
While the "S Tank" is an interesting weapons system, (or in my opinion, a very nice self-propelled anti-tank gun,) it should be noted that prior to their retirement in the 1990's, no other country bought any of them, despite Bofors Company's best efforts. That, and after their announced retirement, when they could have been had dirt cheap, still no one bought them.
So as a purely defensive, high-mobility, anti-tank weapon, it was very good. But not in the same league as a real tank.
skeilak 1 year ago
@skeilak They wouldn't be dirt cheap. By the time it was scrapped, the tanks were very old and required a lot of maintenance. Plus that by the 90's there was thermal vision, and the S-tanks turbine engine would make it very visible.
The Swedes did try to make an unmanned version, however the technology didn't exist.
hogge87 1 year ago
@hogge87 : As I recall, the Swedes did offer them for sale.
And you're right, they were costly to maintain, but all tanks are.
And while thermal imaging would be a problem on a "first-world" battle field, that wouldn't be a problem for, say... Brazil, Argentina, Indonesia, Uganda, and the like. I think the tank's overall sophistication, limited role, and turbine engine probably scared off that market. Still, a fine vehicle.
I would also think an unmanned battle tank is still some years away.
skeilak 1 year ago
The S-tank did kill 8 British Chieftain tanks without any damage in an exercise in the mid 80s. First fielded in 1962 and the worlds first tank with Autoloader, LASER and Ballistic calculator. Highest fire rate and longest fire range of all tanks at that time!
SgtDrDeath 1 year ago
exercise and combat are 2 different things, the challenger one ,didnt do great in that competion against rival tanks that time, yet challanger 1 ,destroyed almost 200 iraqi tanks,was it without any losses,, the challenger 2 is almost a different tank again, and it was this tank i think that had the longest ever ,tank kill , in iraq
TheMightOfTheEnglish 1 year ago
"worlds first tank with Autoloader"
First tank with autoloader was AMX-13 light tank.
MokomaSusi 1 year ago
@MokomaSusi okay but it was a revolving mag, not relay an auto loader in that sense...
SgtDrDeath 1 year ago
@SgtDrDeath
Actually no ballistic calculator on the 103c only a LASER,that we did not need, due to its fantastic gun L62. Politician´s decided that instead of stabilazing the tank it
was to be equipped with LASER. Under 2000m you dont need a LASER on that tank. Battlefield ranges are rearly longer than that in Sweden
kmzmmz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The S-tank did kill 8 British Chieftain tanks without any damage in an exercise in the mid 80s. First fielded in 1962 and the worlds first tank with Autoloader, LASER and Ballistic calculator. Highest fire rate and longest fire range of all tanks at that time!
SgtDrDeath 1 year ago
The dozer blade can probably be used to clear some types of mines 2, altough its not designed for it.
Tungurknifur 1 year ago
when was the video made?
daniel931016 1 year ago
Probably in the mid-1980's.
The S-tank was phased out in the early/mid 1990's.
Wolfogre 1 year ago
Fist S-tank was in operation in Sweden 1967. 350 S-tanks were built. Retierd in mid 90s
SgtDrDeath 1 year ago
huh? this tank NOT suitable again on this year 2010..
rasta362 2 years ago
Depend on what you plan to do.
Defend yourself against an overwhelming force of T-72 in rural areas? Then this is perfekt.
Go on the offensive in the desert against T-72 monkey models in iraq? Then the abrams is better.
Tungurknifur 1 year ago
@Tungurknifur
Sorry mate, We tested seweral T-72 after the fall of warsaw pact.
I´ll take my S-tank on the offensive against T-72, any day, using swedish tactic developed for the S-tank. But not against the T-80
kmzmmz 1 year ago
Nice graphic
swedisagnostic 2 years ago
nice beast !
opckw147 2 years ago
The S-tank was one of the tank officers in Warsaw pact feared most because it was so hard to dedect, hit and its awesome gun could fire longer than the Russian tanks!
SgtDrDeath 2 years ago
that maybe true up until the 115mm of the t-62.
louistheimpotant 2 years ago
This is the only tank I have ever seen with a built in bunghole.
patsfanczar 2 years ago
Damn 7:00... let's see an M1 try to do that lol.
IcyScythe 2 years ago
Best defensive tank I've ever seen, but it wasn't really adopted by other nations because it is worthless in attack.
patsfanczar 2 years ago
how so?
louistheimpotant 2 years ago
S-tank with a 120mm Rhinemetall gun, Chobham and ERA...scary effective defensive tank, dude.
When dug in correctly, the S-tank's almost invisible. Like literally JUST the end of the barrel and the commander's periscope can be seen.This is by design. How can you kill what you can't hit?
Bullzeye95 2 years ago 29
@Bullzeye95
Wrong: "S-tank with a 120mm Rhinemetall"
its a 105-mm-L/62-Kanone from Bofors
Wrong: "Chobham"
As far as i know the Strv103 just had a simple multilayer steel armor
Wrong: "ERA"
The S-Tank was never upgraded with reactive armour
kreuzundquer 2 years ago
@kreuzundquer The guy was saying IMAGINE the S-tank with all that modern stuff. Not that it HAD it. Derp.
JBMontgomery87 5 months ago
@Bullzeye95 Yes, it was an amazing construction for its time, Today you can hit a tank from any direction, most commonly from the top and thru the roof :(
Skalmans750 1 year ago
@Skalmans750 True, true. You could kill a dug-in S-tank very easily from above, either with air support, a Javelin, or guided artillery rounds.
Maybe I'm judging the tank on antiquated standards, but the thing would still be a major force multiplier in a hit-and-scoot, tank defense-in-depth scenario.
Bullzeye95 1 year ago
@Bullzeye95 Back in the days it must have been pretty hard to take out :)
It´s still a impressive machine allthough it´s a 35 year old tech.
With some upgrades it could, as you say, be a major force multiplier.
Skalmans750 1 year ago
@Bullzeye95 A javelin rocket will do the trick. It drops on top of a vechicle where the armor is weaker so even Chobham wont protect it. ;(
Paciat 1 year ago
@Paciat Yes a javelin missile will make easy work of the s tank, and anyother tank of today. But in order to use the javelin against a tank you need direct line of sight for the system to lock onto a tank, and thats where the S tank has an advantage because its for the 1st small, for the 2nd its primary tactic is to stay hidden untill the time to attack has come. So the only time you will MOST LIKELY be able to discover and open fire with a javelin missile against an s tank is during a firefight
Thourette 1 year ago
@Bullzeye95 too bad it can't fire while its moving but in my opinion it is the perfect defensive MBT.
shan9usfc 1 year ago
@Bullzeye95 Hwo needs a Rhinmetall gun when we got Bofors?
ollonsvin 5 months ago
I served on those in 1970. I have experience from all three positions, and the "baklänges lasse" was the worst. Bad view (periscope only) and with the radio in your face, backpedalling at full speed is no joke, But the worst problem was the gas turbine, couldn´t take dust.
janaxel1 2 years ago 3
Since you served in this tank: Do you think it is a good tank?
patsfanczar 2 years ago
is it possible to air drop one of these tanks?
louistheimpotant 2 years ago
The S-tank can be air dropped, it is actually rather light in weight.
patsfanczar 2 years ago
i still say hetzers design still bether then S tank
morgorth3242 2 years ago
Why...?
swertinge07 2 years ago
First / shaped armour, second it can move it gun with out moving the entire hull for fiew cm
it got MG42 on it
low profile, and its fast
morgorth3242 2 years ago
S had "gate" armor, three 7,62 mm machine guns, nightvision, lasrrangefinder, 105 mm gun, autoloader... Are you kidding me? You actually think a WW2 tank is better...?
swertinge07 2 years ago
Upgrade the hetzer with Modern material and it outmatches the s tank
morgorth3242 2 years ago
So you are kidding me... The "S" tank is built on conclusions drawn from Hetzer, Jagdpanther and so on...
swertinge07 2 years ago
still it lacks the ability to move its cannon with out moving its entire hull
morgorth3242 2 years ago
Even if the S tank has a bigger caliber gun then Hetzer, the hetzer stand 3 cm taller. Three machine guns against one... Then again, you probably thing an "updated" Tiger 2 would defeat the M1A2 SEP(V2) tank....
swertinge07 2 years ago
no i dont
jagd tiger? leopard?
give Hetzer 110mm cannon, modern armour, modern optics, keep MG42 and its caliber on it
Uranium shells, modern diesel engine
morgorth3242 2 years ago
Hetzer was a tank destroyer, not really a tank because of the philosohy it was built on, which was speed, firepower, at the cost of protection.
patsfanczar 2 years ago
that's not entirely true. strv 103 can actually move the cannon a couple of degrees to the sides without moving the entire vehicle. But still, it is made for defence at an oncoming attack. In swedish terrain also for that matter.
romajo 2 years ago
Fascinating tank! The Swedes are very creative when it comes to creating new machinery of war. The S tank even had room available for an extra crew member, the rear driver, who faced the rear of the tank equipped with a complete setup for driving. This allowed the tank to be driven backwards at the same speed as forwards, keeping its frontal amour pointed at the enemy.
CapKorzeniowski 2 years ago 3
at 0:50 i emidietly thought of the land master
lumpwump 2 years ago
Why did they stop using this? It seems like a great idea and look at the front of the tank it's like a wedge, rounds would bounce right off of it I bet. Since Sweden is unlikely to to go on the offensive it's the perfect defensive tank, who cares if it can't fire while moving.
Mrpantymelt 2 years ago
1 It got old and ran out of spareparts, and to make more it would have been kinda expensive to reproduce new ones.
2 Gyrostabilisation had enterd the battleground.
Still the fastest fireing tank in the world tho :)
And i was a perfect defence tank. Last war simulation in -97, 6 s-tanks took on 6 leo5 in a defencivebattle. S-tank won with the loss of 1 tank vs all 6 leos destroyed.
blidderbla 2 years ago
even if you're fighting a defensive war you still need to be able to go on the offensive to recapture lost territory or counterattack
blubbson 2 years ago
the thing is when they tested its defense against some other tank(forgot what it is) the progectile went right through it, right through the whole thing, to my surprise. I like its design, low silhoutte too....but too bad amour isnt strong enough
Cptjonmiller 2 years ago
Modern subcaliber ammunition (long rod penetrators with discarding sabot adapter) are unlike WW2 full bore solid shot- they don't deflect off of surfaces, rather they tend to normalize and turn into the target. Even weak Iraqi T-72 1960's BM-9 ammunition with half propellant charges didn't deflect off of Abrams tanks but stuck into them like arrows without full penetration. Advantage is that they increase the line of sight thickness, as if a given layer were thicker without actually being so.
K0ntakt5 2 years ago
"finns were full citizens" Maybe, but i hope you don't think that means "equal". Because that certainly wasn't the cause. I have to wonder where sayings like "svenska talande bättre folket" originate among finnish speaking population. Would it be because back then swedes had all the wealth and power in finland, and might have been a "little" privileged ? I don't want to sound bitter or anything here, because I don't give a f''k, but it's a historical and cultural fact.
RistoReipas88 2 years ago
Event though nationalism as a mass movement didn't exist back then, that doen't mean national identity didn't exist. And btw, i don't consider myself a patriot. Far from that. I think nations shouldn't exist at all. I have no reason to "love my country", especially with the current idiots in charge of it. Nation is an arbitrary concept that unnecessarily divides people.
RistoReipas88 2 years ago
yes we have leo2, but 103S was crap, the engine hydraulic beaked down all the time and it was hard to hit a target that moving, but as a defender it was in possible to shut out if you even saw it in time before you ware eliminated, with 50mm panzer that become 70mm in a angel of 45 Degrees, nice to drive and 70Km/H if the gas turbine was engage powered by Volvo gas turbine and a Detroit Diesel.
swdendud 2 years ago 2
today they have our leo 2 or am i wrong??
watzman123321123321 2 years ago
looks like a modern hetzer by the way XD
watzman123321123321 2 years ago
Thats true, we currently use the German Leo 2, though modified tof it our needs.
I Think we could dust of the 103S blueprints soon and correct our errors, and get it to a wider market.
maniacstudio87 2 years ago 3
hell yeah! sweden rocks!
solitajre222 2 years ago 22
What a nice toy for play-action in the forrests!
TheBigTittyTwister 2 years ago
The S-Tanks where developed to act in the Swedish forrests it couldt have any turrent because it would allways hit trees when it tried to point the tower so they built it as low as posible so it could stay as hidden as possible and it waited unill enemy tanks came. luckely that never happend.
Gurkmomma 2 years ago
The fact is that 10 S-tanks did kill 27 Challangers in a training excercise in the 80s.
It was designed for one purpouse, to kill the Russian T72s in north of Sweden.
SgtDrDeath 2 years ago 4
Hmmm, looks more like german StuG from WW2 than like a tank. Interesting design. Is this tank the reason why sweden uses the Leopard 2 today? just kidding....
VpR81 2 years ago
One should not underestimate a turretless tank. In the German counter-attack on Carentan on june 13th 1944 in Normandie 25 STUG tanks and an SS panzergrenadier batallion pushed back the 101st division and destroyed 49 shermans and inflicted serious casualties although being far less than the american defenders.
That Band of Brothers show shows the event differently though!
SoldatenArvidsjaur23 2 years ago
U missunderstood me. I don´t underestimate this tank. But it looks like a STuG. It surely has its advantages!
VpR81 2 years ago
Fair enough! :)
This perticular tank is made to ambush the enemy. That doesn't just mean lying and waiting but often to drive up against the enemy through the Swedish forests, firing and then going full throttle backwards which is just as fast.
Many times in Sweden the terrain is too wooded for tanks being deployed conventionally. That's what makes the S perfect for say a russian invasion from Finland:)
SoldatenArvidsjaur23 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Russian invasion from finland ?
To do that, they would have to invade finland first.
Aint gonna happen.
Why does sweden have an army at all ? They have always depended on finland to cover their ass :D
RistoReipas88 2 years ago
Judging by the fact that Sweden had one of the largest military capacities in the world during the Cold War (4th largest air force and 1 000 000 men at mobilisation) we were quite prepared to fight the Red Army, as well as Sweden has a large military industry.
SoldatenArvidsjaur23 2 years ago 3
wow, that's a really smartass comment coming from you. Russia would've crushed Finland in less than a week, just like they would with sweden. And when has Sweden ever depended on Finland to cover its "ass"?
shifty2k5 2 years ago 2
Sweden has never depended on finland, we ve been depending on NATO...
The S-tank was built to defend agianst Russian tanks in the deep woods of northern sweden (eventually Finalnd)
Basically was Swedens strategy, defend and fall back, defend and fall back.
ollenu123123 2 years ago
Russia has tried to crush finland many times, look what has happened in the past, they have never succeeded (except once when the army defending finland was SWEDISH army). Study history (further than just cold war), swedes have always been provoking russia from behind finland's back.
RistoReipas88 2 years ago
Germany and German weapons defended Finland early in World War 2
bohemianh 2 years ago
Yes, study history. Finland was part of Sweden until 1809. Not a possession like Estonia or Pomerania, but an integral part of Sweden. Finns were full citizens, etc. The idea of nation-states is a 19th century idea; people just didn't think in those terms before Finland fell to Russia. Be a Finnish patriot if you want, but don't go re-writing history. Love your country for what it is, not some fictional version that never existed. You can't write Finland out of Swedish history or vice-versa.
platypusfrenzy 2 years ago 3
I know my history. Didn't you read my comment. Russia was able to conquer finland when it was under swedish rule, and thus had swedish army defending it. Finland has never been "integral part" of sweden. We have always had our own language and culture. Finns have never considered themselves swedes at any point in history, no matter who ruled us.
RistoReipas88 2 years ago
Hate to break it to you but finland was an integral part of sweden, just as "skåne/scania" was of denmark once. The idea of a finnish nation didn't really occur until the 19th century, before that finland wasn't "under swedish rule" as you say, it was sweden. You might not like it or want to admit it but thats how it was. Noticed I said "how it was" and not how it is. No reason to fight over it. Swedes and finns have much in common due to our history, focus on that instead. ;)
plox2000 2 years ago 13
@plox2000 well said my friend
SergeantJK 10 months ago
@plox2000 The Finns lived in Finland even before the Swedes conquered us and we lived here even after you lost Finland to the Russian Tsars. The Finns were never Swedish. Our land was just under Swedish rule.
But all that said I do still like and value our Swedish neighbors and I would fight side by side with you if your nation was threatened. :)
YksiSuomalainen 6 months ago
@YksiSuomalainen There were people living in what is today known as Finland, yes. However, like I said in my prev. post, the idea of Finland as a nation didn't really take shape until the 19th century (hence, they were swedish citizens). Just as there were people living in Sweden before the actual creation (during the 11th century) of the country itself took place. (Again, just saying how it was, not how it is.)
My point was that we're all pretty much the same, no need for "national" flaming.
plox2000 5 months ago
@plox2000 Even if we were under a different nation we would still be Finns. Our ethnicity doesn't change because the government changes. You think that we were Swedish when we lived under Swedish rule and Russian when we were under Russian rule, but we weren't. We were Finns living under a foreign nation.
YksiSuomalainen 5 months ago
@YksiSuomalainen Good god, can't belive I have to explain this again. Yes, the finns would be finns, swedish finns. Just as people living in an area known as scania in Sweden are scanians, swedish scanians. Once they were danish scanians and saw themselfs as danes, when scania was a part of denmark. Just as the swedish finns saw themselfs as swedish citizens once.
This is neither good or bad, I'm just saying how it was. You're finns today, congrats, enjoy it, but accept historical facts.
plox2000 5 months ago
@plox2000 Please at least accept the possibility that your wrong. From what I know from those times the Finnish people saw the Swedish as a invading and occupying power and people. We did not consider ourselves Swedes one bit and the Swedish didn't consider us Swedish either.
YksiSuomalainen 5 months ago
Ye, invasion is easy business..just bare in mind that swedes are the taliban afghans of the north.
coromantborr 2 years ago
"Russia would've crushed Finland in less than a week" thats what they said in 1939 aswell ;). And sweden is depending on finland to cover its ass right now, since swedish strenght is below 20 000 fighting men atm.(Thank you retarded government)
pytnelakingen 2 years ago 4
We should start using it again but 2.0 version when it can fire when moving ^^
Mille92swe 2 years ago
This tank is obsolete today, only a few remains in museums, the rest have been melted down in a steelwork not far from my home!!! Maybe a sad ending, but I think it served well for many years. Maybe it should have been keept as a defensive weapon-system? Well, too late now...it's Leopard 2 that counts today!
HPL420 3 years ago 3
look bad ass though yeah it cant count as a tank its more of a tank destroyer
boomstix 3 years ago
its a turtle, a tank killer. obsolete those swedes sure are nutty.
ltbravo1984 3 years ago
dont diss sweden! it may not be good at use in northen america or in other places, but its perfect int sweden, thats wath it was designed for
StratovariusFTW 3 years ago 7
it was a very specific weapon listen to the video people it was psecifically designed for swedish terrain the reason no one else used it.
billyysands 2 years ago
S tank greatest ever
billyysands 2 years ago 2
An innovative design tailored for swedish needs during the cold war, but useless for other countries. They look cool though.
rezimato 3 years ago 3
It can fire on its move. But very hard to hit the target ^^
swec89 3 years ago
Defense is more important than offens !
I think it is wery good tank for defense.
Good job Sweden, greatings from Latvia !
smilars 3 years ago 13
Some of these tanks were converted into minesweepers...
When Sweden were ready for a new tank, we had 4 options:
Getting the Abraham m1a1, the challenger, the Leopard 2 and starting our own project, called tank 2000 or something, that would far outclass any tank in use today. This was however too expensive, so we went for the leo 2.
1tanterhetaida2 3 years ago 5
good choice, besides i heard tanks are starting to get obsolete
boomstix 3 years ago
Very inovative design IMO. The idea of ONE guy using it too is a definant plus, decreases casualties. In defense i think these would be matched by no other save modern MBTs. Put it in a dug in and you have yourself a nasty defense
poonjoo 3 years ago
Yay, sweden.
cm2dude 3 years ago
I have a nice ass V
chelsup23 3 years ago
Are they selling these tanks to other countries at bargain prices? I think they're cool.
albertkc2007 3 years ago
it was custom-maid for sweden, meaning it's extremly useful in cold climate, with no roads, a hell alot of forest and or mountains.. it not to any real use in open combat.. so it doesn't fit so many countries
klaijkan 3 years ago
thy suk very hard! wonder why we send them bak to mother natur?
toftisch 3 years ago
I like it, If you are getting rid of them send me 1,
wdinns 3 years ago 2
Shouldn't the swedes be using Leo 2's by now?
Wilmot1846 3 years ago
Yes we are. We have about 280 Leo 2 now.
The S-tank is no longer in use.
HCnyling 3 years ago
Thans more like mounted cannon than a tank.
goodcatmytank 3 years ago